Arxiv:2006.03564V1 [Cs.CL] 5 Jun 2020

Spoken dialect identification in Twitter using a multi-filter architecture Mohammadreza Banaei Remi´ Lebret Karl Aberer EPFL, Switzerland Abstract and even a single author might use different spelling for a word between two sentences. There also exists This paper presents our approach for SwissText a dialect continuum across the German-speaking part & KONVENS 2020 shared task 2, which is a multi-stage neural model for Swiss German of Switzerland, which makes NLP for Swiss German (GSW) identification on Twitter. Our model even more challenging. Swiss German has its own outputs either GSW or non-GSW and is not pronunciation, grammar and also lots of its words are meant to be used as a generic language identifier. different from German. Our architecture consists of two independent There exists some previous efforts for discriminating filters where the first one favors recall, and the similar languages with the help of tweets metadata second one filter favors precision (both towards such as geo-location (Williams and Dagli, 2017), but in GSW). Moreover, we do not use binary models (GSW vs. not-GSW) in our filters but rather a this paper, we do not use tweets metadata and restrict multi-class classifier with GSW being one of the our model to only use tweet content. Therefore, this possible labels. Our model reaches F1-score of model can also be used for language identification in 0.982 on the test set of the shared task. sources other than Twitter. LIDs that support GSW like fastText (Joulin et al., 1 Introduction 2016) LID model are often trained by using Alemannic Out of over 8000 languages in the world (Hammarstrm Wikipedia, which also contains other German dialects et al., 2020), Twitter language identifier (LID) only such as Swabian, Walser German, and Alsatian Ger- supports around 30 of the most used languages1, which man; hence, these models are not able to discriminate is not enough for NLP community needs. Furthermore, dialects that are close to GSW. Moreover, fastText LID it has been shown that even for these frequently used also has a pretty low recall (0.362) for Swiss German languages, Twitter LID is not highly accurate, especially tweets, as it identified many of them as German. when the tweet is relatively short (Zubiaga et al., 2016). In this paper, we use two independently trained However, Twitter data is linguistically diverse filters to remove non-GSW tweets. The first filter and especially includes tweets in many low-resource is a classifier that favors recall (towards GSW), and languages/dialects. Having a better performing Twitter the second one favors precision. The exact same LID can help us to gather large amounts of (unlabeled) idea can be extended to N consecutive filters (with text in these low-resource languages that can be used to N ≥ 2), with the first N −1 favoring recall and the enrich models in many down-stream NLP tasks, such last filter favoring precision. In this way, we make arXiv:2006.03564v1 [cs.CL] 5 Jun 2020 as sentiment analysis (Volkova et al., 2013) and named sure that GSW samples are not filtered out (with high entity recognition (Ritter et al., 2011). probability) in the first N −1 iterations, and the whole However, the generalization of state-of-the-art NLP pipeline GSW precision can be improved by having a models to low-resource languages is generally hard filter that favors precision at the end (N-th filter). The due to the lack of corpora with good coverage in these reason that we use only two filters is that adding more languages. The extreme case is the spoken dialects, filters improved the performance (measured by GSW where there might be no standard spelling at all. In F1-score) negligibly on our validation set. this paper, we especially focus on Swiss German as We demonstrate that by using this architecture, we our low-resource dialect. As Swiss German is a spoken can achieve F1-score of 0.982 on the test set, even with dialect, people might spell a certain word differently, a small amount of available data in the target domain (Twitter data). Section2 presents the architecture of 1https://dev.twitter.com/docs/ developer-utilities/supported-languages/ each of our filters and the rationale behind the chosen api-reference training data for each of them. In section3, we discuss our LID implementation details and also discuss the subwords embedding should be updated in order to detailed description of used datasets. Section4 presents improve the downstream task performance. In addition, the performance of our filters on the held-out test there are even syntactic differences between German dataset. Moreover, we demonstrate the contribution and GSW (and even among different variations of GSW of each of the filters on removing non-GSW filters to in different regions (Honnet et al., 2017)). For these see their individual importance in the whole pipeline three reasons, we can conclude that freezing the BERT (for this specific test dataset). body (and just training the classifier layer) might not be optimal for this transfer learning between German 2 Multi-filter language identification and our target language. Hence, we also let the whole In this paper, we follow the combination of N −1 fil- BERT body be trained during the downstream task, ters favoring recall, followed by a final filter that favors which of course needs a large amount of supervised more precision. We choose N = 2 in this paper to data to avoid quick overfitting in the fine-tuning phase. demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach. As dis- For this filter, we choose the same eight classes for cussed before, adding more filters improved the perfor- training LID as Linder et al.(2019) (the dataset classes mance of the pipeline negligibly for this specific dataset. and their respective sizes can be found in section 3.1). However, for more challenging datasets, it might be These languages are similar in structure to GSW (such needed to have N >2 to improve the LID precision. as German, Dutch, etc.), and we try to train a model Both of our filters are multi-class classifiers with that can distinguish GSW from similar languages GSW being one of the possible labels. We found it to decrease GSW false positives. For all classes empirically better to use roughly balanced classes for except GSW, we use sentences (mostly Wikipedia training the multi-class classifier, rather than making and Newscrawl) from Leipzig text corpora (Goldhahn the same training data a highly imbalanced GSW vs. et al., 2012). We also use the SwissCrawl (Linder et al., non-GSW training data for a binary classifier, especially 2019) dataset for GSW sentences. for the first filter (section 2.1) which has much more Most GSW training samples (SwissCrawl data) parameters compared to the second filter (section 2.2). come from forums and social media, which are less formal (in structure and also used phrases) than other 2.1 First filter: fine-tuned BERT model (non-GSW) classes samples (mostly from Wikipedia The first filter should be designed in a way to favor and NewsCrawl). Moreover, as our target dataset GSW recall, either by tuning inference thresholds or consist of tweets (mostly informal sentences), this by using training data that implicitly enforces this bias could make this filter having high GSW recall during towards GSW. Here we follow the second approach the inference phase. Additionally, our main reason for for this filter by using different domains for training using a cased tokenizer for this filter is to let the model different labels, which is further discussed below. also use irregularities in writing, such as improper Moreover, we use a more complex (in terms of the capitalization. As these irregularities mostly occur in number of parameters) model for the first filter, so informal writing, it will again bias the model towards that it does the main job of removing non-GSW inputs GSW (improving GSW recall) when tweets are passed while having reasonable GSW precision (further detail to it, as most of the GSW training samples are informal. in section4). The second filter will be later used to improve the pipeline precision by removing a relatively 2.2 Second filter: fastText classifier smaller number of non-GSW tweets. For this filter, we also train a multiclass classifier with Our first filter is a fine-tuned BERT (Devlin et al., GSW being one of the labels. The other classes are 2018) model for the LID downstream task. As we again close languages (in structure) to GSW such do not have a large amount of unsupervised GSW as German, Dutch and Spanish (further detail in data, it will be hard to train the BERT language model section 3.1). Additionally, as mentioned before, our (LM) from scratch on GSW itself. Hence, we use the second filter should have a reasonably high precision German pre-trained LM (BERT-base-cased model2), to enhance the full pipeline precision. Hence, unlike which is the closest high-resource language to GSW. the first filter, we choose the whole training data However, this LM has been trained using sentences to be sampled from a similar domain to the target (e.g., German Wikipedia) that are quite different test set. non-GSW samples are tweets from SEPLN from the Twitter domain. Moreover, lack of standard 2014 (Zubiaga et al., 2014) and Carter et al.(2013) spelling in GSW introduces many new words (unseen dataset. GSW samples consist of this shared task in German LM training data) that their respective provided GSW tweets and also part of GSW samples 2Training details available at https://huggingface.

Load more